pegasus
Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2006
- Messages
- 484
- Points
- 18
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress....ating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/DENIAL MYTH #9: The temperatures we’re experiencing in the later part of the 20th century are a result of the global climate finally coming out of the Little Ice Age.
Debunking: The Little Ice Age is a period of significant cooling in Europe, but there are questions as to whether this known regional change was truly global in dimension. However, if you look at the graph of the temperature data for the last 2000 years, there is no period where the reconstructed global temperatures have changed at a faster rate than in the last 50 years or so. I refer people to the IPCC Working Group 1 Report, Chapter 6, Figure 6.10 and Box 6.4, pages 467-469 (image shown above in Myth #8 above), but also to this NCAR press release that verifies that the basic conclusions of the original “hockey stick” remain accurate even using multiple different models.
You have changed your stance pretty suddenly. Now you believe in climate change just not the causeI for one am not saying climate change doesn't exist, but I do not agree that man is the sole cause of everything, and I believe if human activity is distorting the balance a little bit I'm sure mother nature is more than capable of restoring balance. Who knows, maybe the ice melting would create condition in which a lot more plant life can exit and thus absorb the extra CO2 (just an assumption).
No this is incorrect thinking. This is distinct from global fluctuations, that is what the science is validating. This is also not something we can just sit out. The last time these changes occured humans weren't 6 billion strong and living cushy. In fact technically they didn't really exist (Homo sapien ancestors, not us I believe). So major changes to our world are going to have major consequences for us. Oh and I like the subtle dismissal of the solid science I presented.What my post aim's to show is that climates change, be it fast or slow, and trying to fool the uneducated into thinking that this is a new phenomenon is wrong. Showing a graph which is pretty flat and is then shooting up would scare the person who can't see what else has been happening in the past, and that this isn't something that extraordinary.
Not about resource management. It won't grow back. It is desert, has been for 1000yrs, will continue to be so short of artificial terraforming. Plenty of examples, Eygpt is mostly desert, used to be an oasis, they did the same thing. My point was that you are pretending we don't have a major effect on the world around us, I was using a small example of how we do.I do not see the point of the story you wrote, that is an example of poor resource management, if humans don't manage there resources right and end up suffering then its their fault, but chances are the batch of forest which turned into a desert, won't always stay like that, given enough time it might return to being a forest or it might not. What I do know is that there are places which used to be covered by water or sand or forest in the the past now they've completely changed. It is wrong for us humans to assume we are the sole cause and solution providers to every problem no matter how big or small.
Blah blah blah. We can't predict the future mainly because of compounding effects. If no-one does anything about climate change then we could have land squabbles, the need for huge technological advances (to abate the worst of the changes and to grow food), we could have wars, or the world could unite as one. But that is neither here nor there and is backwards thinking.One thing I do know is that the future is almost impossible to predict the future. As you can see from the graphs the temperatures have been quite high for 1000's of years, in another few thousand years is might dive back down somewhere lower or it might keep going a little further up, but that is the thing, you just can't be sure where its going.
Natural population systems are pretty well defined and stock markets mimic this. Rise and crash, stabilisation doesn't occur for lengthy periods. Crashes are not something that is desireable. A correction is a crash, stop pretending that it is somehow easy to live through a mjor crash, this last one didn't cause as much damage as it would have.This is the same with the stock markets, sometimes it over shoots but eventually it will correct it self. But no one is capable of predicting how high or how low it will go.
This is a spurious argument. Weather isn't climate and they aren't necessarily linked nor exclusive. Weather can be predicted relatively accurately, especially given the amount of spacial variation that it is trying to account for with a single number on the nightly news. Your statement about being "amused" by predictions of X degree changes shows an ignorance of the topic. Your allusion to the stock market being somehow similar is farcical. The greater stock market trends, which are readily graphed and understood, are the equivilent of modelling climate, not the day to day trading of one company that you are implying, which is more akin to the weather in one spot miles from the nearest weather station.So the fact that computer models which can't predict next weeks weather have been able to determine that the earths temperatures will increase by 2°C amuses me. I'm sure if the guys programming them were so gifted as to be able to predict the future they would all be predicting where the stock markets are going and becoming trillionairs in no time. In the markets they say "the trend is your friend" so it means don't fight it, because they can stay irrational for a lot longer than you can stay rational (or liquid).
So kill yourself now then. If the world is going to warm and kill us all why have hope for the future?If the temperatures are rising then the trend is set, its best to try and put all of your focus and energy in trying to adapt rather than fighting it. No crappy agreement and a few percentage reduction is ever going to cool the earth down, so why waste the time and money trying to do so.
At what stage have I said I support the taxes or trading schemes?So to conclude, I don't disagree with climate change, but I disagree with scaremongering:
and bringing about taxes none of which will probably be used for any good cause, power grabs and making statements like the science is settled, the debate is over and branding anyone who disagrees as the village idiots, flat earthers (which you do alot), or trying to stop any kind of discussion about the material which they claim to base their theories on by preventing access to them...
dilatedmuscle said:I dont know whether or not to beleive that global warmin is being sped up by humans or not. All i know is that its kinda silly that once people start to debunk all the stuff that Al Gore said, they had to come up with new studies that would "proove" them right again.
What the science says...
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
The hockey stick gained prominence in the Third Assessment Review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study used tree-rings, ice core, ice melt, coral and long instrumental records to reconstruct past temperatures.
Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere temperature changes estimated from various proxy records shown in blue (Mann 1999). Instrumental data shown in red. Note the large errors (grey area) as you go further back in time.
Two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, published a critique of Mann's methodology, citing statistical errors. Mann published a corrected version of the hockey stick, showing essentially the same result. Mann's original 1999 study continues to be criticised today.
Do you really????dilatemuscle said:We all know know about junk science so it is possible for someone to steer results in their favor so i dunno who to beleive.
Oh but it is ok to ridicule and condemn anyone who does.dilatedmuscle said:One thing i dont like is the ridiculing or questioning of integrity of those who do not beleive global warming is spedup and/or caused by man.
When Al Gore made the Inconvenient Truth there were scientists that were critical that he used the outdated data. Further to that the "debunkers" didn't actually prove anything wrong, if anything they actually led to a stronger data set due to the improvements made. READ MY POST.
Do you really????
So you would know then how to spot this in the analysis of the data. Oh wait you aren't even sure what the data is
I was talking about the actual term "junk science" and i didnt mean to say that the studies posted are junk or that they fall under the category of junk science, I was meerly speaking in general terms
Oh but it is ok to ridicule and condemn anyone who does.
No it is not and i never said it was nor did i ever do it.
You see telling someone that all of this science is a fraud or somehow wrong without actually even understanding the information is ridiculing and questioning the integrity of those that support and created the information.
I never said it was fraud and im not saying they are full of shit, im saying i dont know what to beleive because there seem to be two sides to the story.
My own organisation (seperate group from my own) has done research on this topic and I have also done a quick analysis on rainfall changes over the past hundred years. I find it insulting when people discredit this information because it is incovenient or unbelievable. If you want to be like a scientist and lend to a greater understanding of the data then feel free (which could include prooving that the null hypothesis is true i.e. nothing is happening). Running around and saying it is a conspiracy and a fraud or lie is just willfully ignorant and/or subversive.
So you weren't being insulting by posting "The Great Global Warming Swindle" videos that are insulting and questioning the integrity of the respected individuals who have researched the Climate Change topic? Strange way of not being insulting or questioning the integrity of people.I think you completely mis-understood where im coming from. I never said they were fraud or wrong. I said i dont know who to beleive. I posted those videos simply because i found them interesting, I never said that they are right or wrong. Part of what i said about questioning the integrity or ridiculing people who dont beleive humans sped things up has to do with some of the scientists in those videos are respected and accomplished individuals and all of a sudden people think they are rediculous because of what they said without actually trying to look at both sides. I loved your use of smilies, i was really able to capture the emotion you were trying to portray
I wasnt trying to make a coment on the reasearch you posted since i didnt even read it. I didnt feel like i needed to because i wasnt gonna question it, Ill give them the benefit of the doubt. But (serious question) were they able to do research on solar flare activity?
Ill say it again, i thought it was "interesting". I thought it was post worthy because in this thread you have someone posting evidence, and you have some dude posting what he thinks and a larger chart that included the stick. In the video ( aside from the propaganda ) they talk about how science and history has proven otherwise. They also point out an interesting theory about how the whole Humans Causing Global Warming is propaganda itself. If you felt like i rediculed or questioned the integrity of your opinion or the studies you posted then thats your own problem. OBVIOUSLY the title of the videos is bias and its obviously done to get attention and get people to watch the actual video. The people in it are also bias but they also explain why what they beleive, their studies, and why they beleive it. Someone might want to watch it because it got me questioning a lot of things.
So you chose instead to post in opposition of the data, something that has already been done in this thread :footmouth:I am not trying to be bias or opinionated myself, but i didnt need to post a pro- humans causing/speeding global warming because it wouldve all the same stuff you just posted. I didnt read all your posts but i saw the graphs and the consistency between the different materials studied. But these guys beleive that all those things mentioned are cause by the sun.
So you chose instead to post in opposition of the data, something that has already been done in this thread :footmouth:
Compelling justification.
The videos were in direct opposition of the data I posted. They are also fraudulent as I pointed out in my previous post.ok, I dont remember being opposed to the data. Im sorry i cant stand reading long articles at once, instead i just hoped chart to chart and read the explenation of the chart. I beleive there is global warming.
Yes. It explains the majority of the change that is observed in the data.Did they prove that human caused CO2 caused is related to global warming?
They have considered these. It does contribute but it does not explain the changes we are seeing. I have posted on this previously somewhere on this forum.Did they take into concideration the sun and solar flares?
Bullshit. At no time in history has the human population been as large, nor has it been able to consume as much resources per capita than it does right now. Plus the data was just released this past weeking showing that this last decade has heated up. The temperature drop is propaganda.I dont know if its true, but in the video they stated that during the times in history when humans were causing much more CO2 then they are today, that temperature actually droped instead of rising.
The videos were in direct opposition of the data I posted. They are also fraudulent as I pointed out in my previous post.
Yes. It explains the majority of the change that is observed in the data.
They have considered these. It does contribute but it does not explain the changes we are seeing. I have posted on this previously somewhere on this forum.
Bullshit. At no time in history has the human population been as large, nor has it been able to consume as much resources per capita than it does right now. Plus the data was just released this past weeking showing that this last decade has heated up. The temperature drop is propaganda.
No this is incorrect thinking. This is distinct from global fluctuations, that is what the science is validating. This is also not something we can just sit out. The last time these changes occured humans weren't 6 billion strong and living cushy. In fact technically they didn't really exist (Homo sapien ancestors, not us I believe). So major changes to our world are going to have major consequences for us. Oh and I like the subtle dismissal of the solid science I presented.
So that leads me to assume that there is no solid link between the two, only a theory. Pretty much like a witch hunt. You then try to write a prescription for earth problems by saying that cutting CO2 levels will stop temperature rises in the future, based on an assumption.Yes. It explains the majority of the change that is observed in the data.
I don't know, but did you see any reference to you when I opened the thread? Do you think I care if you are in support for the taxes or not? what I said was my objection to what the group of retards in Copenhagen are trying to implement. What disgusts me is that this whole thing is turning into some what of a religion where a small group are trying to shove their bullshit ideology down peoples throats, by using scaremongering and spreading lies. I didn't create the pictures I posted, it was your fellow man made global warming advocates who did.At what stage have I said I support the taxes or trading schemes?
At what stage have you understood the science enough to be critical of it?
At what stage did those pictures have anything to do with the discussion? I show graphs and data, you show a globe on fire......
So kill yourself now then. If the world is going to warm and kill us all why have hope for the future?If the temperatures are rising then the trend is set, its best to try and put all of your focus and energy in trying to adapt rather than fighting it. No crappy agreement and a few percentage reduction is ever going to cool the earth down, so why waste the time and money trying to do so.